K. Ratnakar Aithal vs Krishna B. Patil and Others

S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—The respondent No. 1 made an application at Annexure ''A'', requesting the Public Information Officer of the Karnataka University, Dharwad, to furnish certain information in relation to the petitioner. The Information Officer sent a reply as per Annexure ''B'' asking respondent No. 1 to deposit the required fee for furnishing the information. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 sent a Postal Order of Rs. 10/- to the Public Information Officer. The Public Information Officer sent a reply, as per Annexure ''H'' dated 15.04.2010, calling upon the respondent No. 1 to deposit a sum of Rs. 9,354/- towards the expenses for providing xerox copies of the records. The respondent No. 1 filed a complaint as per Annexure ''C'' before the State Information Commissioner under Section 18(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short the Act). The Commissioner registered the case in K.I.C. 29 PTN 2010 and orders have been passed from time to time at Annexure ''E'' and Annexure ''M'', in the said proceedings. The petitioner has called in question the validity of the said orders in this writ petition.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint under Section 18(1) of the Act before the Commission is not maintainable. If the respondent No. 1 was aggrieved by the inaction of the Public Information Officer in not providing the information, he ought to have filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Act. In this connection, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Chief Information Commr. and Another Vs. State of Manipur and Another, .

It is clear from the materials on record that in order to furnish the information, namely, for providing xerox copies of the records, the Public Information Officer directed the respondent No. 1 to deposit certain amount towards the expenses. The respondent No. 1, instead of filing an appeal under Section 19 of the Act, has directly filed a complaint under Section 18(1) of the Act before the respondent No. 3, alleging that he has been illegally denied with the information.

Failure to furnish the information within the specified period is deemed to have the effect of refusal of the request, which is clear from Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act. If that is so, respondent No. 1 ought to have filed an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act. A second appeal is also provided against the order of the first appellate authority under sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act.

The Apex Court, in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has held that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power under Section 18 of the Act to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character, whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by the 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 under Section 19 . Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions.

Therefore, the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 at Annexure ''C'' before the respondent No. 3 was not maintainable and the orders made thereon by the Commission at Annexure ''K'' and Annexure ''M'' are without jurisdiction. The order at Annexure ''K'' dated 30.06.2010 and Annexure ''M'' dated 28.10.2010 passed in K.I.C. 29 PTN 2010 by the respondent No. 3 are hereby quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.