Jeet Pal v. St at e I nform at ion Com m issioner Anr

Appellant challenged t he aforesaid order, passed St at e I nform at ion Com m ission, in Writ Pet it ion No. 94 of 2018. His writ pet it ion was dism issed by learned Single Judge vide j udgm ent dat ed 19.2.2018. I n t his int ra- Court appeal, appellant has challenged t he j udgm ent dat ed 19.2.2018, passed by learned Single Judge. Operat ive port ion t he im pugned j udgm ent reproduced below: t he aft er proper is only t he St at e “ 5. Definit ely, I nform at ion Com m issioner him self has no powers t o init iat e an enquiry against t he pet it ioner as t he pet it ioner is not an em ployee of t he Com m ission. All t he sam e, t he order dat ed 19.12.2017 t he nat ure of inform at ion or at best in t he nat ure of a com plaint t o t he Dist rict Magist rat e, who has now t o exam ine t he m at t er and if he prelim inary sat isfact ion, he should init iat e t he enquiry against t he pet it ioner. 6. Apart from t he provisions under t he Act , what is relevant for our purposes is also it is a st at ut ory aut horit y which is t he St at e I nform at ion Com m issioner, which has found t hat t here is a prim a facie case of corrupt ion and m isappropriat ion of funds against t he pet it ioner, and t herefore, he has brought t he t o Dist rict Magist rat e, Haridwar. Now, it is for t he Dist rict Magist r at e t o eit her act upon it or in case, he is not sat isfied prim a facie, he would be free not t o t ake any act ion against t he nat ure of t he com plaint which relat es t o Mid- Day m isappropriat ion of m oney from st udent s. Since t his has been brought t o t he not ice of t he Dist rict Magist rat e, he should at least go int o t his aspect and t hereaft er depending upon his sat isfact ion, he m ay proceed furt her wit h t he m at t er. 7. However, it is m ade clear t hat in case t he Dist rict Magist r at e, Haridwar proposes t he pet it ioner considering t he not ice of Schem e Meal t his 3 t o t ake any act ion against t he pet it ioner, he shall first give a not ice t o t he pet it ioner and only aft er t he pet it ioner is duly heard by t he concerned Dist rict Magist rat e, t he Dist rict Magist rat e shall proceed furt her in t he m at t er. 8. Wit h t he above observat ions, t he writ pet it ion st ands disposed. 9. The Regist rar General of t his Cour t is hereby direct ed t o com m unicat e a copy of t his order t he concerned Dist rict Magist rat e for onward com pliance.” t o

3. Learned Counsel for t he appellant subm it s t hat perusal of t he order dat ed

13.12.2017, passed by St at e I nform at ion Com m ission ( im pugned in t he writ pet it ion) , reveals t hat t he inform at ion sought by respondent no. 2 was supplied t o him by regist ered post on 10.7.2017 and aft er supply of desired inform at ion, t he appeal under Sect ion 19( 3) of RTI Act could not have been ent ert ained. He furt her subm it s t hat Block Educat ion Officer, Narsan ( Haridwar) was t he Public I nform at ion Officer and appellant was neit her t he Public I nform at ion Officer nor he was m ade part y t o t he appeal, t herefore t he direct ion issued behind his back t o suspend him and also t o lodge FI R under Prevent ion of Corrupt ion Act against him is unsust ainable. He furt her subm it s t hat t he direct ion t o put t he appellant under suspension and also t o lodge t he FI R against him is also beyond t he scope of powers available t o t he St at e I nform at ion Com m ission under Sect ion 19 of t he Act . He subm it s t hat t he appellant was t ransferred from Govt . Junior High School, Banheda, Narsan t o Govt . Junior High School, Sikarpur, Narsan vide order dat ed 7.11.2017 and he 4 j oined in t he t ransferred school im m ediat ely t hereaft er.

4. Learned Counsel for t he appellant furt her subm it s t hat t he order passed by t he St at e I nform at ion Com m ission is beyond t he scope of it s powers under Right t o I nform at ion Act and Sect ion 18( 2) of t he said Act , which relied upon for dism issing t he writ pet it ion, is not at all at t ract ed in t he present case, as Sect ion 18( 2) would be at t ract ed t o a case where Public I nform at ion Officer has refused t o accept an applicat ion for inform at ion or in case when a person desirous of seeking inform at ion is unable t o m ake a request due t o non- appoint m ent of Public I nform at ion officer. He subm it s t hat t he condit ion precedent for exercise of power under Sect ion 18( 2) of t he Act is non- exist ent in t he present case as t he applicat ion m ade by respondent no. 2 was not only accept ed but t he desired inform at ion was also supplied t o him , as is revealed by t he order passed by t he St at e I nform at ion Com m ission.

5. Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of Chief I nform at ion Com m issioner v. St at e of Manipur, ( 2011) 15 SCC 1, held t hat under Sect ion 18 of Right t o I nform at ion Act , Cent ral or St at e I nform at ion Com m ission has no power t o provide access t o t he inform at ion which has been denied t o an applicant and furt her t hat only order which can be passed under Sect ion 18 of t he Act is an order of penalt y provided 5 under Sect ion 20 of t he Act and furt her t hat before such order is passed, t he I nform at ion Com m issioner m ust be sat isfied t hat t he conduct of t he I nform at ion Officer was not bona fide.

6. I n t he aforesaid j udgm ent , it was furt her held t hat a person who has sought inform at ion under Sect ion 6 of t he Act and has not received any reply t heret o, has t he rem edy of filing an appeal under Sect ion 19 of t he Act . Relevant ext ract of t he said j udgm ent reproduced below: refusal receiving 3 9 . The nat ure of t he power under Sect ion 18 in charact er is supervisory whereas t he procedure under Sect ion 19 is an appellat e procedure and a person who is aggrieved by t he inform at ion which he has sought for can only seek redress in t he m anner provided in t he st at ut e, nam ely, by following t he procedure under Sect ion 19. This Court is, t herefore, of t he opinion t hat Sect ion 7 read wit h Sect ion 19 provides a com plet e st at ut ory m echanism t o a person who is aggrieved by refusal t o receive inform at ion. Such person has t o get t he inform at ion by following st at ut ory provisions. The cont ent ion of t he appellant t hat inform at ion can be accessed t hrough Sect ion 18 t he express provision of Sect ion 19 of t he Act . is cont rary aforesaid t he t o t o int erpret at ion, 4 0 . I t is well known t hat when a procedure is laid down st at ut orily and t here is no challenge t he said st at ut ory procedure t he Court should not , in t he lay down a nam e of procedure which is cont rary t o t he express st at ut ory provision. I t is a t im e- honoured t he decision principle as early as in Taylor v. Taylor [ ( 1875) 1 Ch D 426 ( CA) ] t hat where a st at ut e provides for som et hing in a part icular m anner it can be done in t hat m anner alone and all ot her m odes of perform ance forbidden. This principle are necessarily Judicial Com m it t ee of t he Privy Council in Nazir t o be done followed t he 6 in Deep Ahm ad v. Em peror [ ( 1935- 36) 63 I A 372 : AI R 1936 PC 253 ( 2) ] and also by t his Court Raj ast han [ AI R 1961 SC 1527 : ( 1961) 2 Cri LJ 705] , AI R at para 9 and also in St at e of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [ AI R 1964 SC 358 : ( 1964) 1 Cri LJ 263 ( 2) ] report ed in AI R at para 8. Chand v. St at e 4 1 . This Court accept s t he argum ent of t he appellant t hat any ot her const ruct ion would render t he provision of Sect ion 19( 8) of t he Act t ot ally redundant . I t is one of t he well- known canons of int erpret at ion t hat no st at ut e should be int erpret ed in such a m anner as t o render a part of it redundant or surplusage. 4 2 . We are of t he view t hat Sect ions 18 and 19 of t he Act serve t wo different t wo different lay down purposes and procedures and t hey provide t wo different rem edies. One cannot be a subst it ut e for t he ot her. I f t he case Sect ion 4 3 . I t m ay be t hat som et im e in a st at ut e words are used by way of abundant caut ion. The sam e is not t he posit ion here. Here a com plet ely different procedure has been enact ed under Sect ion 19. t he int erpret at ion advanced by learned counsel for t he respondent is accept ed, in t hat becom e unworkable and especially Sect ion 19( 8) will be rendered a surplusage. Such an int erpret at ion t he fundam ent al canons of const ruct ion. 4 4 . Reference in t his connect ion m ay be m ade t o t he decision of t his Court in Aswini Kum ar Ghose v. Ar abinda Bose [ ( 1952) 2 SCC 237 : AI R 1952 SC 369] . At p. 377 of t he Report Pat anj ali Sast ri, C.J. had laid down : ( AI R para 26) t ot ally opposed 19 will t o “ 26. … I t is not a sound principle of const ruct ion t o brush aside words in a apposit e st at ut e surplusage, appropriat e circum st ances conceivably wit hin t he cont em plat ion of t he st at ut e.” 4 5 . Sam e was t hey applicat ion t he in Rao Shiv Bahadur Jagannadhadas, J. Singh v. St at e of Vindhya Pradesh [ ( 1953) 2 SCC 111 : AI R 1953 SC 394 : 1953 Cri LJ 1480] SC at p. 397 : ( AI R para 5) opinion “ 5. … it is incum bent on t he court t o avoid a const ruct ion, if reasonably perm issible on t he language, which would render a part of t he st at ut e devoid of any m eaning or applicat ion.” 7 4 6 . Das Gupt a, J. in J.K. Cot t on Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Lt d. v. St at e of U.P. [ AI R 1961 SC 1170] at p. 1174 virt ually reit erat ed t he following words : ( AI R para 7) t he sam e principles “ 7. … t he court s always presum e t hat t he legislat ure insert ed every part t he t hereof legislat ive int ent ion is t hat every part of t he st at ut e should have effect .” for a purpose and 4 7 . I t t hat is well known t he legislat ure does not wast e words or say anyt hing in vain or for no purpose. Thus, a const ruct ion which leads t o redundancy of a port ion of t he st at ut e cannot be accept ed in t he absence of com pelling reasons. I n t he inst ant case t here is no com pelling t he const ruct ion put t o accept reason forward by t he respondent s. request on 4 8 . Apart from t hat t he procedure t he Act , w hen under Sect ion 19 of t o Sect ion 18, has several com pared safeguards for prot ect ing t he int erest of t he person who has been refused t he inform at ion he has sought . Sect ion 19( 5) , in t his connect ion, m ay be referred t o. Sect ion 19( 5) put s t he onus t o j ust ify t he denial of I nform at ion Officer. Therefore, it is for t he officer t o j ust ify is no such safeguard in Sect ion 18. Apart from t hat t he procedure under Sect ion 19 is a t im e- bound one but no lim it is prescribed under Sect ion 18. So out of t he t wo procedures, bet ween Sect ion 18 and Sect ion 19, t he one under Sect ion 19 is m ore beneficial t o a person who has been denied access t o inform at ion. t he denial. There t he 4 9 . There is anot her aspect also. The procedure under Sect ion 19 is an appellat e procedure. A right of appeal is always a creat ure of st at ut e. A right of appeal is a right of ent ering a superior invoking it s aid and int erposit ion t o correct errors of t he inferior forum . I t is a very valuable right . Therefore, when t he st at ut e confers such a right of appeal t hat m ust be exercised by a person who is aggr ieved by reason of refusal t o be furnished wit h t he inform at ion.

7. Learned Single Judge has repelled t he challenge t hrown by t he appellant t o t he order passed by St at e I nform at ion Com m ission by holding t hat it is referable t o t he power 8 available t o St at e I nform at ion Com m ission under sub- sect ion ( 2) of Sect ion 18 of t he Act and furt her t hat t he order of t he Com m ission passed on 13.12.2017 is only in t he nat ure of inform at ion or at best t he nat ure of com plaint t o t he Dist rict Magist rat e. The view t aken by t he learned Single Judge unsust ainable for t he reason t hat Sect ion 18 would be at t ract ed only when a person is refused access t o any inform at ion request ed under Right t o I nform at ion Act or is given incom plet e, m isleading or inform at ion under t he Act or is not given a response t o a request inform at ion access t o inform at ion wit hin t he t im e lim it s specified under t he Act .

8. Condit ions necessary for exercise of power under Sect ion 18 of t he Act are non- exist ent t he present case. Moreover, appellant is neit her Public I nform at ion Officer nor he was in any m anner responsible for refusing access t o inform at ion or for giving incom plet e, m isleading or false inform at ion or for not giving response t o a request inform at ion m ade by respondent no. 2. Even ot herwise also, t he appellant was not part y t o t he proceedings before St at e I nform at ion Com m ission and he was not given any not ice or hearing before passing t he order. Therefore, t he im pugned order is violat ive of principles of nat ural j ust ice. Moreover, direct ion t o lodge FI R against t he appellant under Prevent ion of 9 Corrupt ion Act is beyond t he scope of powers available t o St at e I nform at ion Com m ission.

9. For t he aforesaid reasons, we allow t he appeal and set aside t he im pugned j udgm ent t he dat ed

13.12.2017, passed by t he St at e I nform at ion Com m ission. However, we m ake it clear t hat t his j udgm ent will not preclude t he disciplinary aut horit y from t aking appropriat e disciplinary act ion against t he appellant , if he is found t o be guilt y of m isconduct in depart m ent al enquiry. ( Su b h ash Up a d h y ay , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 2 .6 .2 0 2 5 Pr PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e 61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB 588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR