Karnataka High Court
Jayaprakash Reddy vs Central Information Commission on 29 October, 2015
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.28310-28311 AND 45540-45542 OF
2015 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
Jayaprakash Reddy,
Son of Eerappa Reddy,
Aged about 58 years,
Resident of Konappalli,
Ambajidurga Hobli,
Chintamani Taluk,
Chickballapur District,
PIN 563 125.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri Babu
Narayana P.S., Advocate)
AND:
1. Central Information Commission,
August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi 110 066.
2
2. Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Law and Justice,
Parliament House,
New Delhi 110 001 (India).
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri Krishna S Dixit, Advocate for Respondents)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to direct to the second respondent
fix a time limit in the Right to Information Act to dispose of the
2nd appeals by the CIC and declare that not fixing a definite
time for the disposal of second appeals by the CIC is
discriminatory, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India
and is opposed to the scheme of the Right to Information Act
and etc;
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing
this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
Shri Krishna S. Dixit, learned counsel is directed to take notice for the respondents.
2. Heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri Jayakumar S. Patil appearing for the counsel for the petitioner. 3
3. The present petition is filed in the backdrop of the petitioner having filed Form-A on 3.7.2014 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTI Act', for brevity) before the Chief Public Information Officer, Election Commission of India seeking information regarding the following:
"(a) the number of total parliamentary constituencies which Mr. Narendra Modi traveled as the Prime Ministerial Candidate canvassing for the BJP during the General Elections held in the year 2014.
(b) individual expenditure for each candidate fixed in INR under Sections 77 and 78 of the Representation of the People Act.
(c) the total travel expenditure incurred by Mr. Narendra Modi who traveled as the Prime Ministerial Candidate canvassing for the BJP during the General Elections held in the year 2014, including that of the chartered flights' airfare. 4
(d) the individual election expenditure incurred by each of the successful candidates of BJP during the General Elections held in the year 2014.
(e) The total expenditure incurred by the BJP towards electronic and print media and canvas remotely made by the Prime Ministerial candidate Mr. Narendra Modi using 3D television screens that were specially installed at public meetings during the course of General Elections held in the year 2014.
(f) the total fund allocated by BJP to each of the States in Indian Parliamentary Elections held in that year 2014 and the limit fixed by the Election Commission for such purpose."
4. The State Officer had caused a reply, which is at Annexure-"B" to the petition. The State Officer having directed the petitioner to approach the Chief Electoral Officer of the respective State as also the District Election Officers in regard to particulars that were sought, the petitioner had 5 preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority and the said appeal also having been rejected, a second appeal is preferred before the first respondent and the same is said to be pending since October 2014. Since the petitioner apprehends that ultimately he may not be furnished the information in view of the inordinate delay in the Appellate Authority considering the second appeal, he is hence before this Court seeking that there be a direction to the first respondent to decide the appeal within a definite time frame, as otherwise, it would result in a miscarriage of justice.
5. The learned Senior Advocate would point out that though sub-section (6) of Section 19 of the RTI Act does provide for a time within which a first appeal is to be decided, namely not exceeding 45 days from the date of filing, there is no such time prescribed for deciding a second appeal. The first respondent has indefinitely postponed the hearing and is not deciding the second appeal, therefore, the present petition. 6
It is indeed to be noticed that no time limit is prescribed to decide a second appeal. Therefore, it would have to be interpreted that when no time is prescribed, it would follow that it ought to be decided within a reasonable time. Since there is a time limit prescribed for deciding a first appeal, it would be safe to conclude that a similar period would apply insofar as deciding the second appeal, for otherwise, it would lead to a situation where the object of the Act is not achieved if the authority should indefinitely postpone the hearing and decision of a second appeal.
6. Consequently, it would be deemed that the second appeal would also have to be decided within a period of 45 days if not earlier, from the date of filing. Since the second appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before the first respondent since October 2014, and more than one year has elapsed, it would be in the fitness of things to direct the first respondent to expedite the consideration of the appeal and pass appropriate 7 orders within a period of four weeks if not earlier, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS