Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shiva Nand Mishra vs Union Of India on 20 November, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-19785-2017
(SHIVA NAND MISHRA Vs UNION OF INDIA)
sh
1
e
Gwalior, Dated : 20-11-2017
ad
Petitioner present in person.
Pr
Shri Shashank Indapurkar, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1 on advance copy.
a hy Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 08.08.2017 passed by Central Information Commission whereby Second Appeal filed by the ad petitioner has been disposed of in terms of the submissions made by M the CPIO, who was present before the Central Information Commission. It is not in dispute that petitioner who was complainant of was not present on the said date.
rt CPIO has submitted that reply to the complaint was furnished to ou the complainant on 06.10.2016 and secondly appellant had filed second appeal directly to the Central Information Commission without C resorting to the remedy of first appeal as is provided under Section 19 h (1) of the Right to information Act, 2005. ig Petitioner submits that no information was furnished to him on H 06.10.2016 and CIC has failed to mention as to from which of the submissions of the CPIO, the Commission is in an agreement. He further submits that as per the provisions contained in Rule 9 of the Right to Information Rules, 2012, if an appeal was not maintainable it should have been returned to the appellant.
As far as Rule 9 is concerned, it only provides that an appeal may be returned to the appellant, if it is not accompanied by the documents as specified in Rule 8, for removing the deficiencies and filing the appeal complete in all respects. Petitioner does not dispute this fact that he had not filed first appeal before resorting to the remedy of second appeal. However, placing reliance on Section 19, he submits that there is no bar of filing appeal directly to the Central sh Information Commission in absence any information being provided e by CPIO.
ad Rule 19(1) reads as under:-
"19. Appeal-(1) Any person who, does not receive a Pr decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or a clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 7, or is aggrieved by hy a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or the ad State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the M receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer of who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer of the State Public Information Officer, as the case rt may be, in each public authority. ou Provision has been made for filing second appeal in Sub Section C 3 of Section 19 which reads as under:-
h "(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-
ig section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on H which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission:"
Thus, it is apparent that there is no provision for filing first appeal directly to the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission as the case may be.
In view of such facts, it is apparent that since petitioner had failed to avail the remedy of first appeal as is provided under Section 19(1) of the Rules, he can at best be permitted to file such first appeal as is provided under Section 19(1) in as much as there is a provision for condonation of delay and petitioner may avail such remedy of filing first appeal before the competent authority explaining the delay.
sh But, petitioner's contention is that he could have directly file first e appeal before the Central Information Commission is not maintainable ad and is therefore rejected. Rule 9 does not provided return of an appeal made to an incompetent or inappropriate authority. It only talks of Pr return of the appeal if it is not accompanied by the documents as a mentioned in Rule 8. Therefore, in the present case, no fault can be hy attributed to the impugned order and, therefore, this petition fails and ad is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner that if so advised, he may file first appeal against the action or in M action of the CPIO.
of rt (VIVEK AGARWAL) ou JUDGE C h ig H mani Digitally signed by SUBASRI MANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA SUBASR PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=a649f7a3438773bf212183510 4753746385b9875063a47872ca437af0 I MANI 6fff8ef, 2.5.4.45=032100B5FBD6FFB92D489F3 7879CB5EB91D2812611546B7D1562B EE45CECD006142951, cn=SUBASRI MANI Date: 2017.11.21 15:28:10 +05'30'