Ramesh Kumar vs Union of India and others

Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure P-23) passed by the Central Information Commission, whereby the appeal of

the petitioner has been dismissed by holding that the composite petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed in the absence of any express

or enabling provisions under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, “the 2005 Actâ€​).

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Central Information Commission dated 16.09.2016 is unsustainable

in the light of the fact that the provisions of the 2005 Act have not been rightly appreciated. He contends that the language of Section 20(1) of the

2005 Act deals with the penalties itself, which makes it clear that the Commission, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal, would proceed to

impose penalty in case the contingencies/situations, as have been pointed out therein, are found to be existent. He, thus, contends that the composite

petition itself is a misnomer as it is the discretion of the Appellate Authority on the basis of evidence and the documents available on record to decide

with regard to the penalties. He, therefore, contends that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside and the case remanded back to the Central

Information Commission for fresh decision on merits.

Learned counsel for the Union of India as also respondent Nos.2 and 3 could not contradict the contention as has been raised by counsel for the

petitioner.

I have also considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the provisions of the 2005 Act and am of the

considered view that the order dated 16.09.2016 as passed by the Central Information Commission (Annexure P-23) is unsustainable. Perusal of the

provisions of Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the 2005 Act, when read in consonance with each other, the order, as passed by the Central Information

Commission, appears to be one which has been passed on a wrong assumption that separate appeals have to be filed for the remedy as has been

provided in the said provisions. The language as incorporated in these

Sections makes it amply clear that it is for the Information Commission whether Central or State to proceed and decide either a complaint or an appeal

and it is during this process if the said Commission comes to the conclusion that penalty needs to be imposed for the reasons as have been pointed out

in Section 20 of the 2005 Act, may impose such penalty as would be required to be imposed in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and the order dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure P-23) is hereby set-aside. The case is remanded

back to the Central Information Commission for fresh decision on merits. The parties to appear before the Central Information Commission on

14.11.2018.