Central Information Commission
Mr.M G Devasahayam vs Cabinet Secretariat on 22 May, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/C/2012/000538
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of decision : 22 May 2012
Name of the Complainant : Shri M G Devasahayam
R/o. 103, Ceebros Bayview,
4th Seaward Road, Valmiki Nagar,
Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai - 600 041.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat,
Rashtrapati Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 004.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
A complaint under section 18 of the RTI Act has been filed before us
inter alia stating that Hon'ble Commission is required to direct the Cabinet
Secretariat to furnish the file records/documents/reports requested for in the
original RTI application. The original RTI application was disposed of by the
Cabinet Secretariat vide Letter No. F12015/256/2012RTI Dated 04052012
addressed to the Complainant stating that the subject pertains to Ministry of
Defence and the RTI application is being transferred to concerned Public
Authority.
2. The Complainant has demanded the information from the public
authority within 48 hours. He has argued that the desired information is
essential for the exercise of his right to effective appeals/review.
CIC/SM/C/2012/000538
3. After carefully considering the arguments offered by the Complainant
in favour of his claim for getting information within 48 hours, in terms of the
provisions of the proviso to Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, we
do not find any merit in this argument. Even if it is agreed that the desired
information is essential for the Complainant to exercise his right to effective
appeal/review, it does not clarify how that information concerns anybody's
life or liberty, a precondition for disclosing the information within 48 hours.
4. Besides, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal
Nos.1078710788 of 2011, this Commission cannot direct disclosure of any
information while dealing with any complaint case under Section 18 of the
Right to Information Act. The relevant paragraphs from the said order of the
Supreme Court are extracted below:
"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 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. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that 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.
The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed
through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19
of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily
and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court
should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which
is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time honoured
principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1
Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a
particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other
modes of performance are necessarily forbidden."
CIC/SM/C/2012/000538
"The procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure. A right of
appeal is always a creature of statute. A right of appeal is a right of
entering a superior forum for invoking its aid and interposition to
correct errors of the inferior forum. It is a very valuable right.
Therefore, when the statute confers such a right of appeal that must
be exercised by a person who is aggrieved by reason of refusal to be
furnished with the information. In that view of the matter this Court
does not find any error in the impugned judgment of the Division
Bench. In the penultimate paragraph the Division Bench has directed
the Information Commissioner, Manipur to dispose of the complaints
of the respondent no.2 in accordance with law as expeditiously as
possible.
This Court, therefore, directs the appellants to file appeals under Section 19 of the Act in respect of two requests by them for obtaining information vide applications dated 9.2.2007 and 19.5.2007 within a period of four weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed following the statutory procedure by the appellants, the same should be considered on merits by the appellate authority without insisting on the period of limitation."
5. The Complaint under Section 18 is not maintainable and the Complainant is free to approach the Commission under Section 19 of the RTI Act in case they feel aggrieved by the decision of the first Appellate Authority.
6. Thus, not only that the desired information does not concern life or liberty within the meaning of the proviso to SubSection 1 of Section 7 of the Right to Information Act, the Central Information Commission cannot also direct disclosure of any information while deciding a complaint filed by a citizen under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act in terms of the above decision of the Supreme Court.
CIC/SM/C/2012/000538
7. With these directions, the complaint under Section 18 is disposed off.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/C/2012/000538